Burkett v. Love’s Empirical Analysis
89 F.3d 135 · 1996
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably Jeffries v. Wood (1997), Kapral v. United States (1999)
14 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Perry v. Sindermann · Rose v. Lundy · Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex · Cain v. Lane · Bronson v. Commonwealth Board of Probation & Parole
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... we need not digress to determine the effect of these provisions on this pending action, filed, as it was, before the amendments were enacted____ Section 106 also provides that a second petition must first be presented to the Court of Appeals before it may be filed in district court. The present petition had been filed before that amendment to § 2254 was enacted, and consequently, it does not apply here.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings, the court shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim unless the applicant shows that— (A) the claim relies on— (i) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or (ii) a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and (B) the facts of the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable fact finder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Love v. Morton“available three potential ways of attacking the denial of parole in Pennsylvania courts — appeal, mandamus or habeas corpus.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.